I see Ian Fraser, who developed the vaccine against cervical cancer, is now working on one for a form of skin cancer. What next I wondered.

Remember the fuss about the cervical cancer vaccine? The religious fundamentalists were outraged that a scientist was attempting to remove one bit of the "wages of sin is death" mentality. So they were refusing to let their daughters be vaccinated because then they (the daughters) might be tempted to engage in S.E.X. without realising that if they did they would die, horribly. God intended them to die horribly, I guess, by creating cervical cancer in the first place.

Wonder what they will say about a skin cancer vaccine? Refuse to allow their children to have it because god intended that if they went in the sun too much they should die horribly? Can't have scientists playing god of course, that is the job of religious fundamentalists.

I thought I might write to Professor Fraser and suggest that before he develops any more vaccines to prevent children dying horribly from particular diseases, he should first work on an anti-religion vaccine.

See I think that, just as no one realised that some cancers were caused by infectious agents, no one has properly understood that religion is not just a metaphorical disease, but an actual one. I think that a few thousand years ago the Earth happened to pass through a cloud containing a particularly virulent and infectious organism. The dust rained down on the planet (which explains why all religions have a belief in some kind of "heaven" "up there" in the sky) and the plague began. Passed on from parents and community elders to children. Doesn't take much, especially if the child can be infected at a very young age, but usually much harder in adults who have developed some immunity.

Shouldn't be too hard to develop a vaccine. Religion, like influenza, does come in a few different varieties, but they share a lot of common features, and finding the common core of the virus and producing general immunity all over the world should be relatively straightforward.

Once everyone was immunised then scientists could get back to developing vaccines and cures for other nasty diseases which have evolved in humans, knowing that they would no longer be rejected by sufferers of religiosity, their brains scrambled by irrational beliefs.

And the side effects of a world immune to religion would be not inconsiderable. One of those win-win solutions. I think I might volunteer to do some work to help the development. I'm sure some of you will join me.

I know many fundamentalists like to frighten themselves by peeping into the atheist world, rather in the way others might watch a horror movie, or take a scary ride in a fun park. All are welcome to have a peep at the terrifying atheism of The Watermelon Blog.

close article | permalink

A school marm she is not. In fact, Ouhoud Al Fahad, the one-time teacher is a strikingly attractive, coquettish, smart, articulate and ambitious brunette who lights up TV screens as a news anchor on a leading Arab satellite channel.

Her combative arguments countering a fellow Saudi Islamist on an Al Jazeera talk show of all venues triggered admiration and a job offer to work at the pan-Arab LBC Sat TV station based in Lebanon where she has been writing, reading and reporting the news since 2006.

"It was luck, it was the first thing I did not initiate," said the engaging 28-year-old, adding that the career change was totally unplanned.

Ouhoud Al Fahad (Abu-Fadil)

By her own admission, she was at a different level in her life, doubling as a graduate student in education at the American University of Beirut (AUB) and as a part-time teacher of English at a local school.

Her concerns were tests, paperwork, and her students, she said.

"Then there was that program on a Saturday night. Monday I got a phone call from the programs director Marwan Matni at LBC Sat. I met with him and he offered me a job in February 2006 and I began training until I signed the contract in October," she recalled.

There were four Saudi women students on that talk show hosted by Al Jazeera's Ghassan Ben Geddo but Al Fahad was the most vocal among them when a male compatriot roused her anger by attacking his own government.

The show focused on whether Gulf Arab youth saw a monster in Iran like many of their governments in the region did. Did they agree with their governments' policies, the host said they would be asked ahead of the program's airing?

In his introduction, Ben Geddo apparently criticized Saudi Arabia and its policies, the first inkling Al Fahad had that the show would be extremely controversial. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, home to Al Jazeera, have been traditional Gulf rivals, with the latter being on better terms with Iran than its larger neighbor.

Worse yet for Al Fahad was the presence among the show's guests of a Saudi male student whom she knew from another university in Lebanon whose father was a jihadist opposition figure.

"He got on his high horse and used terminology that was unacceptable. He lives on another planet," she said incredulously. "The government is paying for his education and he's in Lebanon attacking it."

The irate Al Fahad took the microphone and told her countryman that Saudi Arabia, despite all the pressures exercised against it, had been able to maintain a balanced foreign policy and asked why he was being educated in Lebanon at Saudi expense.

"Then I told the host I never knew that terrorists were sent on scholarships to go and fight and blow themselves up. This is not logical," she added.

That's when the host turned red and said there was no time to turn the discussion to Saudi Arabia.

Al Fahad's boss at LBC Sat later told her she had floored the host and his guest and that he admired how she had handled the situation.

"I love my country and I'm able to see what's right and wrong and can criticize to correct mistakes," she said. "I appreciate that people are being educated abroad and that Saudi society has changed."

That learning experience that she credits AUB with providing her began with a BA in education which her family funded before returning to do an MA in the same field on a Saudi government scholarship.

"What helped was being an AUB student. It's not like you're living in Lebanon. When you're at AUB, it's like you can rule the world," she said of the holistic approach at the institution where she and her colleagues were never attached to books.

They had to act, she emphasized. Books were there on the desk, as a reference. It was the person in the classroom that made a difference.

The shift in gears was an education in itself. Being telegenic doesn't hurt, she agreed.

The training at LBC Sat involved content, appearance, technical matters, gestures, how to address guests, and writing for broadcast media.

Ouhoud Al Fahad anchoring news

"I learned everything by doing," she said. "Just because I anchor doesn't mean I don't do reports. In my contract, I'm an anchor, a news writer, and a reporter but someone else edits"

The fast learner with a slightly American accent picked up skills from the way colleagues at the station operate. She called it a constant workshop.

She acknowledged that she still had much to learn and accomplish but refusesd to step over people to attain her goals despite the cutthroat nature of the TV news business.

Al Fahad is heartened by the social changes she sees in her country, with young educated Saudis returning to fill key jobs.

It helps to have had educated parents. Her mother studied medicine and her father was the first person in the kingdom who was fully fluent in French and managed to work with countless French companies at a time when English was the only language of business.

"We've since progressed," she concluded with satisfaction.

close article | permalink

President-Elect Barack Obama's transition team is reported to be deeply divided over whether to offer a post to Monica Lewinsky, the former White House Intern whose intimate relationship with President Bill Clinton led to his impeachment.

Until now, Lewinsky was one of the few high-profile figures from the Clinton Presidency who had not been recruited for the incoming Obama team. Mr. Clinton's brother Roger is another, though on Friday there were rumors he would be named ambassador to Spain.

One group, which includes David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's campaign manager who has been named his senior advisor, favors the move to balance the influence of the Clinton-era policy people by adding someone with a different perspective.

A second faction led by Mr. Obama's Chief-of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, is bitterly opposed believing that a Lewinsky appointment would needlessly antagonize the Clintons and their supporters. Before being elected to Congress, Mr. Emanuel served as a senior advisor to President Clinton.

Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, who is expected to be nominated as Secretary of Health and Human Services, responded to a reporter who asked about the Lewinsky rumors by pretending to receive a cell phone call. When the reporter took the phone from him and closed it while making a "we both know what you're doing" facial expression, Daschle said that appointing Lewinsky would be "like rubbing salt in the wounds of Senator Clinton at a time when we're supposed to be in a healing process." He added that Miss Lewinsky's presence in the White House would be "a huge distraction."

But New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who broke with the Clintons over his endorsement of Mr. Obama, said that Lewinsky was "a fresh face" with "a lot to offer." Richardson lost the post of Secretary of State to Senator Clinton and is now Mr. Obama's choice for the far less prestigious job of Secretary of Commerce. "The Obama Adminstration should be focused on recruiting the best people to help us address the challenges of the future and not get bogged down in past history," he said.

The Clintons themselves have not commented on the possibility of a Lewinsky appointment though people close to her have said that Sen. Clinton was shocked and appalled by the idea. "It's a non-starter for her," said Philippe Raines, a longtime aide to Sen. Clinton. "She doesn't want to run into Monica in the West Wing ladies' room," he added.

However, Justin Cooper, who edited Mr. Clinton's autobiography, My Life, and has remained close to the former president, said that Mr. Clinton was cautiously supportive of the prospect. "He's always had great admiration for Monica's abilities," Cooper said. "I think he's just concerned that she might get in over her head if she were given a job as a political move."

Since the scandal, in addition to her status as a pop culture icon of sorts, Lewinsky has had a brief career as a handbag designer and then attended the London School of Economics where she received a master's degree in Social Psychology. Her thesis was titled "In Search of the Impartial Juror: An Exploration of the Third Person Effect and Pre-Trial Publicity."

No decision has been reached as to exactly what sort of job Lewinsky might be offered. "With her background, I could imagine her doing something on either the jurisprudence side at the Department of Justice or on the handbag side, at either the Department of Commerce or the Department of Agriculture," said Deborah Kaye, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies the Executive Branch.

Monica Lewinsky was not available for comment. Through her attorney, William Ginsburg, she released a statement, which read, in part, "I am honored and humbled by the opportunity to serve my country again at this crucial juncture in our history."

close article | permalink

Two of my Hollywood pals had important things happen this past week that are worth noting and I hope you'll indulge me. First, A friend of almost 20 years, Chris Willman of Entertainment Weekly lost his job due to cutbacks at Time Inc. I can't emphasize enough what a great writer Chris is. I first noticed his writing in the L.A. Times in the late 1980's. At a time when it seemed like every entertainment writer in the nation was slavishly fawning over Madonna, Willman's somewhat snarky reviews were a breath of fresh air. I also loved the way he championed amazing but neglected artists like Sam Phillips. Willman is a one of a kind writer and I know he'll find a great home soon, but EW's decision to part with a writer of his caliber makes me think this economy is in very serious trouble. Godspeed Chris.

Another friend, Robert Davi a veteran actor who starred in films like Die Hard & The Goonies among many others, has made a nice little film called The Dukes and it releases in select theaters this week. The Times had a nice piece on him today which you can read here. I've seen it twice and think that Davi has done a nice job directing, writing and starring in the film. It's his directorial debut by the way and all of this couldn't be happening to a nicer guy. Hollywood may be full of bad people, but Davi isn't one of them. The story centers around a doo-wop group that can't sell records anymore and decides to steal gold that is used to make fillings, from a dentist's office, not realizing that it's fool's gold. He gathered together friends like Chazz Palminteri and Peter Bogdanovich and made a film that he should be proud of. Hats off to Robert and I'm sure that this will be the first of many more films to come.

close article | permalink

In a major win for all consumers, Democrats in the House of Representatives voted Thursday to put Rep. Henry Waxman of California in charge of a key panel that will have oversight over global warming issues in the new Congress.

He'll head the House Energy and Commerce Committee, replacing Michigan Democratic Rep. John Dingell, 82, the most senior member in the House. Waxman is probably best-known for his tenacity in taking-on the tobacco industry and developing many rules concerning their manufacture and, especially, their sale. Waxman will demand better mileage, lower emissions and more safety from Detroit-made vehicles.

(Henry Waxman will be a pit bull, but without lipstick, for working with Detroit to try and save the US auto industry).

In front of two House committees this week, the Detroit Three were represented by their respective CEOs, Chrysler by Robert Nardelli, Ford by Alan Mulally and GM by Richard Wagoner. Their testimony was that they believe the crisis in their business is all about tight credit, forcing consumers who want to buy cars and trucks to wait until the economy comes back.

They still refuse to take any responsibility for making vehicles which many Americans simply don't want to buy. Poor product has been Detroit's problem since the middle of the 1970s, the same time that Japanese-made cars entered the U.S. market, when many consumers had their first experience with better reliability. Also, Japanese cars included many items, such as rear window defoggers and dual side mirrors, as standard equipment, things which had always been expensive options on Detroit's vehicles.

And it's been a severe downhill run for Detroit ever since.

What the economic crisis really did create was a sense of urgency for "saving Detroit," which resulted in the Detroit Three chiefs put on public display under the glare of TV lights in front of Senate and House committees, and what America saw, they didn't much like.

(Ford CEO Alan Mulally painted a fairly rosy picture of his company's current situation in front of Washington committees; while GM and Chrysler had no product introductions or press conferences at the Los Angeles Auto Show last week, Ford displayed a 2010 Mustang, with even more horsepower, and gas/electric hybrid versions of the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan).

Bottom line: Detroit's Three were eventually going to be in this predicament, world monetary crisis or not. Detroit's current line-ups of cars and trucks continue to be more and more irrelevant to consumers' needs, while European and Asian carmakers are well on their way towards offering gas/electric hybrids and clean diesels throughout their product lines.

(Here's what caused about the only excitement from Detroit at the LA Auto Show: Ford's 2010 Ford Fusion gas/electric hybrid. It's been a long time in coming, and we hope it does well).

When ABC News caught all the Big Three witnesses and their staffs, each arriving in Washington in private corporate jets, they not only looked arrogant and selfish, the world saw that Detroit's leaders are arrogant and selfish. GM has said that they'll sell two of their eight jets, but those jets are the ultimate Detroit perk, and no one will give them up easily.

A gas/electric hybrid 2010 Ford Fusion (and its cousin, Mercury's Milan), which were unveiled for the first time at this week's Los Angeles Auto Show, a 2008 Chevy Malibu hybrid family sedan and Silverado hybrid truck, and literally nothing new from Chrysler in either hybrid or clean diesel technology, tells the tale of Detroit's ongoing failure to address the reality of their problems, poor products.

(Chrysler made a lot of noise about the "Hemi Hybrid" V8 engines in their Dodge Durango, seen above in a cut-away view, and Chrysler Aspen models. But in deciding to close the one plant which makes them, in Newark, Delaware, at the end of this year, those two nameplates could win the prize for "shortest-lived automotive models").

You can't sell a green line-up if you don't make green cars and trucks.

With improved mileage, government oversight and spelling out how the loans would be repaid, Congress - and Detroit - may be on their way to creating a workable plan for Detroit, Washington - and all of us, too. It all depends on Detroit's ability to come up with plans which are realistic and forward-looking.

While no carmaker in Europe or Asia is as yet suffering as badly as the Detroit Three are, tight credit, which became a problem thanks mostly to the sub-prime mortgage debacle in the U.S., is becoming more of a problem worldwide, hurting vehicle sales in every market.

In Europe, GM subsidiary Opel became the first German carmaker to call for help when it approached their federal and state governments last week, asking for state loan guarantees.

Also, as reported in "Local - Germany's News in English," German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she wants to make sure aid to the U.S. auto industry will not put Europe's own auto companies at a competitive disadvantage.

"We will not let Opel go under... North Rhine and Westphalia states will put forward guarantees along with the other states and the federal government," said state premier Kurt Beck, whose German state has many carmakers and suppliers.

(Here's the 2009 Ford Festiva, a car sold in Europe but not - as yet - in the US. Wouldn't it make sense for Ford to sell such a smart-looking car here?).

Opel has plants in those two states as well as Thuringia and Hesse. Hesse state premier Roland Koch says his government will offer half a billion Euros in guarantees, and the money will be coming soon. This will affect not just Opel but its suppliers too, which together employ 50,000 people in Hesse state alone.

In China, carmakers are asking for government assistance, but they don't want cash to bail them out; what they seek are new rules and regulations governing support for their sector of the economy, according to Business Week.

That support, they say, could come in the form of subsidies for technology development, easier-to-meet standards and better protection from intensifying competition.

How much protectionism should be included when the bill to help Detroit is finalized? And how much should be included in the plans of other countries to help their auto industries?

close article | permalink

As the economy tanks, the panelists agree with Paul Krugman's observation in today's New York Times that we don't have two months to wait. Tony wants Obama to take the lead and signal where he's going with the economy since W can't get traction and the Congress is less than useless. He calls the three testifying auto company execs nitwits for being so tone deaf and calls Congress stupid for saying they're not going to protect three million jobs because these three nitwits flew in on private planes. Obama must act now. Arianna wants to get rid of the nitwits and put a general plan for restructuring in action. They talk about Hillary Clinton - Bob worries she might be a hawk - and Janet Napolitano - Tony says she's not qualified. And don't miss Tony's poetic rant!

close article | permalink

Behind the stench of flowing sewage and the smell of disease is a country that is beyond collapse. Yet, nowhere are there more signs of bustling activity than the countries graveyards. On a bright day, in Unit L graveyard in Chitungwiza, the staff opens up 50 new graves for burials. Those allocated graves will be used up far before Sunset. The increases in burials in this cemetery are up 150 percent. Every few minutes families take turns burying their loved ones. They dig; they grieve and then depart; perhaps wondering if the will be able to afford the next funeral.

The rich soil of this previously prosperous country is once again at the heart of its activities; at one time famous for its rich harvests and abundant food the soil is now providing the country's blanket of death. The blanket needs to expand.

When I stayed with a friend in a residential area of Bulawayo last August, there was no water. Fifteen months later, there is still no water in Bulawayo. In fact, there is no water anywhere in Zimbabwe. The government utilities turned off water when it ran out of money for treatment chemicals. Shovels have become as familiar an item as walking sticks as desperate families search the ground until they find water. People fill pots and pans, as they drink from this untreated sewage water.

In addition to the aids epidemic, the mass starvation and increase of rape and abuse, Cholera has reared its' head. Still, nothing is done by the rest of the world.

The situation in Zimbabwe is desperate. Most world news this weekend discussed President Mugabe's refusal to let a humanitarian team in the country. This team included former United States President, Jimmy Carter and former head of the United Nations, Kofi Anon and human rights activist, Graca Machel, who is also Nelson Mandela's wife. This was a diversion. So much more needs to be done immediately. If I hear one more President or Chancellor talk about the illegitimate regime or make a statement, I am going to scream.

The United Nations and The Red Cross push into war torn countries like Rwanda and the Congo, yet Zimbabwe is left on its own. True, there is not a typical war in this country, but there is systematic genocide. Isn't that a situation worth the world community's response?

The country has virtually shut down. Every school, store and government office is closed. Last I read, inflation hovered somewhere near 230 million percent. Zimbabwean currency has been abandoned and replaced by the American Dollar.

Last week a group of men who supported the opposition party disappeared in the dark of night from their homes. The locals know these men will never be seen alive again. Families are separating out of desperation, traveling to other parts of Africa or globally, so they can send money back to family stranded in Zimbabwe. These people are the lucky ones. The families who have never traveled outside of Zimbabwe are the ones dying. They have no alternative.

Rapes have doubled, if not tripled. The women who had been raped by the youth militia are nowhere to be found. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michealene-cristini-risley/the-estimated-cost-of-hum_b_103772.html?view=screen
There is no medical treatment available, so most of these women are developing full blown aids. HIV/AIDS treatment medication is inaccessible; there is not a single hospital or clinic with its doors open.

A woman pregnant in Zimbabwe right now, is anything but joyful; most are certain to die. If a woman is unlucky enough to be in need of a caesarean for birth, she has two choices. She must pay the $400 dollars to get this procedure done, or her family creates a vigil as she dies. Death in these cases is almost imminent.

In the LA times on Friday, Robyn Dixon interviewed a member of the Central Intelligence office, the CIA of Zimbabwe. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-cio20-2008nov20,0,4184119.story.

The CIO agent speaking anonymously and "Estimates that 60% to 70% of CIO officers -- all but the hard-line ideologues -- no longer back Mugabe." Even with Mugabe's support deteriorating it is not likely to change the outcome in Zimbabwe. Conformity is a prerequisite to those in Mugabe's regime. No matter what your personal feelings, conform or risk death. This is why change cannot happen from inside Zimbabwe.

My friend recently pleaded with her husband to get their three children to a neighboring country. All their friends beg for food as they watch their children starve to death. Some of the Zimbabweans have had to bring food in by bus to feed their families. They cannot bring in enough food to feed everyone. She has struggled to help many to stay alive, but her life has been threatened, so she is now in hiding. Her husband drove all night to visit with her. She almost did not recognize him as he drove up; he had not had a bath in months. His skin was very dry and much darker than she remembered. He smelled as if he had "all the sewage of Gaborone on him", she said.

Nowhere do I hear a discussion of Mugabe's Syphilis. I often wonder if this disease has ravaged this man's mind or do I use that as an excuse. It is hard for me to imagine a man turned so rotten from the inside out. His thirst for power and insatiable greed has destroyed this incredible country. Perhaps we can learn from the destruction of Zimbabwe that the actions of power and greed can destroy us all.

close article | permalink

What guidelines should govern Bill Clinton's future activities if Hillary becomes Secretary of State? Recent events suggest that at least two are necessary: no more favors for human rights violators in exchange for big contributions to the Clinton Foundation; and no more lying to the news media about such deals.

It's worth remembering the nearly-forgotten story we could call "Bill Clinton and the Kazakh uranium." As Jo Becker and Don Van Natta Jr. of the New York Times reported in January, 2008, Bill Clinton was part of a corrupt three-way deal in 2005 involving the president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, whose human rights record has been criticized by many, including the Bush White House -- and Senator Hillary Clinton.

Kazakhstan has uranium--one fifth of the world's reserves. The president of Kazakhstan wanted to be named head of an international election-monitoring organization--the same one that had ruled his election fraudulent. What to do?

Bill Clinton had the solution: it centered on a Canadian financier named Frank Giustra who wanted to get in on the Kazakh uranium projects. Clinton and Giustra flew to Kazakhstan in September 2005 on Giustra's private jet and met with President Nazarabayev. According to the New York Times, Bill "expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's bid to head an international organization that monitors elections," despite official opposition from the US as well as from his own wife.

Two days later, Giustra got the uranium deal he wanted. And shortly after that, the Clinton Foundation got its single largest contribution -- from a foundation controlled by Giustra -- $31 million. The contribution was secret, of course.

Then Jo Becker and Don Van Natta Jr. of the New York Times got onto the story. And then the Clinton people started lying.

When the Times asked about Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with the Canadian financier, Clinton sent a written response declaring that the two took the trip together "to see first-hand the philanthropic work done by his foundation." The paper reported that "a spokesman for Mr. Clinton" said Bill "did nothing to help" Giustra get his deal.

That story fell apart when the president of the Kazakh uranium project told the Times that the Canadian did discuss the deal directly with the Kazakh president, and that, according to the paper, "his friendship with Mr. Clinton 'of course made an impression.'"

But what does any of this have to do with Hillary? Quite a bit, it turns out: key staff members of her campaign also played key roles in the Clinton Foundation. Hillary's campaign chairman and chief fund-raiser, Terry McAuliffe, according to the New York Times, also "led the foundation's fund-raising and sits on its board." Hillary's campaign general counsel, Cheryl Mills, also sits on the foundation board. Hillary's campaign press secretary, Jay Carson, previously held a communications position at the foundation.

Frank Giustra is the biggest contributor to the Clinton Foundation, and the one the New York Times investigated. But the foundation has 208,000 contributors. How many other Kazakh-type deals did Bill make with them? Clinton is keeping their names secret from the public (although he has turned them over to the Obama team vetting Hillary).

Here's one more guideline regarding Hillary as Secretary of State: no more secrecy for donors to the Clinton Foundation.

close article | permalink

In 2007, I wrote several blogs in the Huffpo on the topic of Nursultan Nazarbayev, "the brutal and corrupt dictator of Kazakhstan and friend of politicians in high places." One was "the well connected dictator," an article that linked to a timeline about Kazakhstan.

A lot has been written this year about a 2005 trip involving Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan, much of it rehashed recently with news of Hillary Clinton's apparent nomination as Secretary of State, by people who don't like Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, pretty much nothing has been written about the Nazarbayev regime ties to other politicians and opinion makers, in the United States and elsewhere, in different political parties, including other presidential candidates. No one in the Congress was interested in blocking the 2007 sale of shares of Westinghouse (and key nuclear technology) to the Kazakhstan government . There has been little interest in probing the extent of Nazarbayev's extensive ties to politicians and opinion makers, including those with ties to energy policy or nuclear proliferation responsibilities, or groups which evaluate progress on human rights.

We are facing a crisis in the areas of energy policy and climate change. We are also concerned about nuclear proliferation, the protection of human rights, and the future stability of central Asia.

It will be interesting to see if the attention to Nursultan Nazarbayev will become more than an occasional opportunistic exercise in Hillary bashing. Will a Congressional committee be willing to explore the extent and manner that the Nazarbayev regime lobbies in the U.S.?

How co-oped is the US. with respect to this regime?

You might ask the Harvard KSG professor Graham Allison, who with former Senator Sam Nunn, wrote introductions to Nazarbayev's book, Epicenter Of Peace.

You might ask Senator Richard Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn, both of whom were awarded the Kazakhstan's prestigious Order of the Dostyk by President Nursultan Nazarbayev.

You might ask Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School, the $26 million consultant to the regime.

You might ask Senator Reid, who recently said that Kazakhstan is "the force of stability in the whole region." (Given the region, this is probably accurate).

You might ask Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, and Charlie Melancon a Democrat from Louisiana, two members of the US Congress that in July were spearheading an effort to nominate the president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, for a Nobel Peace Prize.

You might ask the many other members of the House of Representatives, from both parties, who have praised the regime.

You might ask some of his many friends. And if the debate is all about Hillary, it certainly has little to do with Nazarbayev, which would be unfortunate.

close article | permalink

One of my favorite writers, musically and otherwise, Peter Holsapple has published an insider's dissection of the dB's "Love is for Lovers" in the New York Times' Measure for Measure column, complete with a link to the song.

For alt rock background, my husband Jeff joined the band based on hearing a cassette version of that song in the Subaru station wagon of the band's then-manager.

Post-Hurricane Katrina, Peter is back in North Carolina but I miss his New Orleans gigs from the Circle Bar to Carrolton Station, back when everyone we wanted to see was just up the street. The dB's were kind enough to record a benefit track of 'What Becomes of the Brokenhearted' for the New Orleans Musicians Relief Fund weeks after the storm hit and Peter, still at the top of his game, made the song his own.

Here's the intro to his Measure for Measure post:

Anatomy of a Flop

By Peter Holsapple

"It's such an honor to be writing here among the likes of (to name but two) Rosanne Cash and Suzanne Vega: songwriters I've admired for years. Their entries in this blog are some fine writing -- not surprising, considering the high level of their songwriting. They have Grammy awards and platinum records between them. Who wouldn't be thrilled to be in such company?

So . . . what's my deal? I have never had a hit in my life.

Once upon a time, though, I think I wrote a hit. It was called "Love is for Lovers" and the dB's recorded it for an album called "Like This" in 1984. It had (and has, I believe) an undeniable hook, the kind you'd find yourself singing in the shower or pounding along to on your steering wheel while driving. The performance, produced by Chris Butler at the old Bearsville Studio in upstate New York, has all the power of the best kind of rock: slamming drums, inventive bass, a solid riff and a fantastic solo."
Continued HERE.

close article | permalink

The outcome of the election for President, and for state and local legislators, not only demonstrates how much Americans want change. It confirms Americans' commitment to our fundamental values of equality and fairness. It gives me reason to hope that we will soon see the end of the death penalty.

The American public simply cannot maintain the death penalty and be true to these deeply held values. There are too many instances of innocent men and women being sentenced to death, of people of color, both defendants and victims, being treated more harshly, and dealt with as if they were expendable.

This is why New Jersey abolished the death penalty in 2007, and why we fully expect other states will follow.

Americans can't square our values of what is right and lawful with the operation of the death penalty in practice. As we learn more about it, support for the death penalty has dropped over the years, to 63%. Support declines even further when we learn about alternatives to the death penalty, and are given the opportunity to choose life rather than death.

With the current economic downturn, all government programs -- including the death penalty -- should and will be evaluated on whether they deliver on their promises and whether the "benefits" they confer are worth the cost. Measured against this stricter standard, the death penalty comes up short. Having failed to deliver on the promise of accurately selecting only the guilty to receive the punishment, it also fails miserably at being cost efficient, and worse, it siphons precious resources from helping crime victims heal and move on with their lives, or preventing the tragedy of murder from occurring in the first place.

Americans would be appalled to discover how much of their tax dollars support the flawed, ineffective death penalty system. For example, it costs Florida $51 million a year to enforce the death penalty above what it would cost to sentence first degree murderers to life in prison without parole. Imagine how that money could be spent on better ways to ensure public safety, such as hiring and training more police to protect our neighborhoods, and enabling them to purchase the equipment they need to do so, such as updated patrol cars, and more efficient information technology systems,

As newly elected and incumbent state legislators take their seats in statehouses next year, they should remember that constituents expect them to provide leadership and creative thinking on a range of social problems, including criminal justice reform and the death penalty. To paraphrase one commentator's post-election analysis, Americans want a more pragmatic and concrete approach to our nation's problems, not rhetoric and symbolic nods in that direction.

An honest assessment of the problems associated with the death penalty is long overdue. The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and its more than 100 affiliates looks forward to engaging state legislators in a reasoned, thoughtful discussion about capital punishment and its alternatives.

Diann Rust-Tierney is the Executive Director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

close article | permalink

As journalist Frederick Clarkson observes, proclamations from Bill O'Reilly, claiming the existence of a leftist assault on Christmas, are "part of a transcendent politics of the Religious Right, and a variant of that old time McCarthism -- baiting everyone with whom they disagree as advocating a 'godless' agenda." Indeed, Billy James Hargis' Christian Crusade was making the same charges back in 1960 and much earlier in the year - in July in fact.

But how did the "War on Christmas", as a concept, originate ? As it happens, once upon a time there was a real "War on Christmas" and it was initiated by the theocratic Christian right of its day, Swiss Calvinists and Scottish Presbyterians. Here's a short overview:

The "war on Christmas" traces back, historically, to Calvinist bans on the celebration of Christmas which began in Geneva and then migrated, with the spread of Calvinist theological views, to Scotland, where Christmas was banned in 1583. As Amy McNeese writes, in an article first published in the Church of Scotland magazine, Life & Work that may be one of the best treatments of the War on Christmas, in an historical account of the Scottish ban on Christmas that only was lifted in the 1950's,

"For almost 400 years, Christmas was banned in Scotland. At the height of the Reformation, in 1583, when anything smacking of Catholicism and idolatrous excess was thrown out with contempt, Christmas and all its trappings was wiped off the official calendar...

...Reinforced by the hard arm of the law, this was a ban that had bite...

This was an age when religious belief could mean the difference between life and a very nasty death....

Scottish Presbyterians, when called on for support by the Puritans of the English Parliament in 1644, did so on the understanding that their allies would in exchange impose the ban on Christmas. For over a decade traditional English Christmas festivities were prohibited

From Scotland, the ban on Christmas spread briefly, as Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army brought the Cromwellian revolution to England. Cromwell's Puritans banned Christmas in England for about a decade but the measure was unpopular. Feelings among pro and anti Christmas advocates ran strong and, after a second enforcement act against Christmas was passed by the English Parliament in 1647,

Again the people rebelled, this time so forcefully that armed officers had to be sent to remove evergreens decorating St Margaret's Church, near the English Parliament itself. Rioting broke out in London, Kent, Oxford, Canterbury and Ipswich, in which several people were killed. A petition with more than 10,000 signatures demanded either the restoration of Christmas or else the king back on the throne...

Even after the bans were revoked in England in 1660, Puritans and other Non-Conformists "ranted against Anti-Christ's-masse and those Masse-mongers and Papists who observe it", and were commonly known to "inveigh against New Year gifts and evergreens, or to attack the Pope by refusing to eat plum-broth; or to condemn those who ate mince-pies as Papists and idolaters"....

These attitudes were carried to the New World by English Puritans, Quakers, Baptists and Scottish Presbyterians. In America, reprisals were as harsh here as back in Scotland. In Massachusetts a five-shilling penalty was imposed on anyone found feasting or shirking work on Christmas Day...

A hundred years later the Quakers were still ranting against the Christmas pie as "an invention of the scarlet whore of Babylon, an hodge podge of superstition, Popery, the Devil and all his works".

From England the Protestant War on Christmas then crossed the Atlantic, migrating with the Puritans who were fleeing the persecution of their political and theological tendency that followed the overthrow of Cromwellian government, to the New World. Under Puritan rule in the Bay State Colony, Christmas was at one point legally banned for two decades.

Christmas fared worse in Scotland though and was only brought back after four centuries because of the experience of Scottish soldiers during World War Two. As Amy McNeese describes,

Abroad and in the company of English soldiers, many Scots experienced their first proper Christmas dinner. Once tasted, it was never forgotten. On their return home, these servicemen began to celebrate the festival with some style, and gradually their ideas took root.

Early in the 20th Century in America, the notion of a "war on Christmas", which had long been on the wane, got a boost, as Talk To Action contributor Chip Berlet demonstrates, in 1921 with Henry Ford's notorious and highly influential anti-Jewish tract "The International Jew".

By the America of the early 1960's, American Christian right groups such as Billy James Hargis' Christian Crusade, which was at least heavily Christian nationalist if not overtly theocratic, had appropriated the notion of a "war ion Christmas" as a means of red-baiting the American left ( see section, below ). But the true, historical War on Christmas was a creation of the Protestant, theocratic right.

According To Billy James Hargis' 1960 "Crusader" article [below], published during dark days leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, during which communism was held to be stealthily advancing via liberal Protestant churches and the machinations of Hallmark Greeting Cards and UNICEF, Christmas was also then under siege from the left. But in 1960, the religious right's war on the alleged war on Christmas got started much earlier in the season than is now customary.

In 1960, the war on the war on Christmas started in July.

Below: December 9, 1960 article from "The Crusader"

close article | permalink

With all the party and media babble about who is better equipped to take over the Republican party in the wake of the bloodbath of the '08 election, it's impressive how deeply the pundits have been able to repress the memory of the Ron Paul campaign.

After all, compare the Ron Paul 'Revolution' campaign with Barack Obama's now acknowledged electoral genius. That stuff Republicans are now realizing they have to do in the future? Paul did it months ago. Excited new voters beyond the base? Check. Raised massive amounts of money from small donations online? Ditto. Legions of creative people generating their own campaign content on YouTube and beyond? Did it. Young voters? Had those.

The biggest problem for Ron Paul and his supporters is the turd-in-the-punchbowl way they were treated by the Republicans. Remember Rudy's snide confusion over the idea that the United State's foreign policy may have somehow have been a factor in why the U.S. was attacked on 9/11? Recall the debate shunning?

But look how things have changed. McCain's psuedo-maverick-ism tore the Republicans a gaping new one after they collectively rejected Ron Paul; the only candidate with ideas for real, actual change...such as ending the Iraq War.

The beauty of the current GOP anarchy is that it may present the perfect chance for the anarachists to take over the establishment. Or the anarcho-capitalists or limited government small L libertarians and or whatever y'all can agree on. (And good luck on that -- agreement isn't what libertarians do well.)

The party is ripe for the taking. Ripe, I say!

It's weeks past the election. Everyone should have sobered up by now. The fact that there is a significant chunk of Republicans that are still crushing on Sarah Palin shows that it's time show the same mercy for the Grand Old Party that The Chief showed to Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest -- any sense of rational thought is gone, so pull out the pillow and start smothering until the kicking stops.

Now here's a tougher question. Do you want the Republican Party? It's got high name recognition and if the two logo choices are the elephant or the donkey, I think the elephant wins. Sure, you don't want most of the people left behind after the Obama rapture devastated Karl Rove's dream of a Permanent Republican Majority and sent anyone with a bow tie, an IQ of over 100 and a dog earned copy of Atlas Shrugged floating off to conservative Valhalla. The ragtag band of people that remain in the blue hats mainly agree that gays shouldn't marry and that straights can't have abortions and that the unmarried gays shouldn't adopt the babies that the non-aborting straights have.

The appeal of Ron Paul was his ideas, not his lovable ole' funeral director looks. So it's time for someone to grab those ideas, grab the organizational skill of herding a bunch of individualists and grab control of the damn Republican party right now... before I have to listen to Mike Huckabee's jokes, Mitt Romney's dumb advice or Sarah Palin's effin' voice for the next four years.

close article | permalink

Twilight
2008
120 minutes
Rated PG-13

How do you judge a film where the core element doesn't work but everything else does? To say that I kinda liked Twilight but didn't care for the romantic drama at its center may be the epitome of absurdity. On the other hand, it should be noted that the other elements of the film are worthwhile. And really, is enjoying Twilight despite the flaws of the main love story any different than enjoying Quantum Of Solace despite the abysmal editing of the action scenes?

A token amount of plot - Bella (Kirsten Stewart, making her character's immaturity seem almost noble at times) has just moved to Forks, Washington to live with her father for awhile. She almost immediately attracts the attention of the brooding and handsome Edward Cullen. They quickly hit it off, but Edward is off-putting and afraid of forming a real connection. Eventually, Bella learns the truth (refreshingly, she actually uses her brains and does research): that Edward and his family are actually vampires and part of Edward's attraction to Bella is driven by his desire to drink her blood.

For those living in a cave for the last few years, Twilight is the first of four books that have scorched the best seller lists. The tale of the forbidden romance between the young schoolgirl and the centuries-old vampire who happens to look and act like James Dean with super powers has captivated young girls, older women, and a token number of males. While most vampire fiction (Dracula, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Interview With The Vampire) use vampirism as a metaphor for rape, the Twilight series (apparently, since I have not read the books), uses it as a metaphor for forbidden, but consensual sexuality (I'll get into the alleged symbolism and 'deeper meanings' in a separate article).

The problem with the core romance is that Edward is brooding, boring, and bland. His opening scenes, where he is physically drawn to Bella's pheromones, are laughably played, to the point of resembling a bad mime act. Yes, Robert Pattinson is a handsome stud of a man, and he'd probably be great in the sack, but what exactly would he and Bella do when they aren't brooding about not having sex (or really, about not even kissing)? He's not funny, he's not charming, and for the first half of the story, he's so rude and obnoxious to her that we question Bella's judgment for continuing to pursue him (he doesn't treat her all that much better when they do start dating). He doesn't wear flowing trench coats or half-buttoned dress shirts, but merely puffy winter coats and t-shirts. He can't even act gallant and romantic when saving her from potential rapists. He doesn't bother to leap from a rooftop and strike a bad ass pose (he's a vampire - he could do that if he wanted to); he just pulls up in his car and flashes the beamers a couple times. Yes, teenagers usually don't care about personality and charm, but it still doesn't make it easy for us grownups to care about this romance and its implications where we know that Bella could do a hell of a lot better, even among other vampires.

It doesn't help that much of their romance is basically them staring at each other and engaging in halted, awkward attempts at conversation about how unhealthy their relationship is. If the majority of your relationship involves talking about your relationship, that's not healthy. The film also stumbles in the third act, by arbitrarily introducing rogue vampires who randomly decide to hunt Bella (to be fair, unlike the book, these villains are introduced at the beginning of the film). It's like the author of the novel decided 'wait, we need to create a situation to bring about the rescue/protection fantasy' and awkwardly tossed in evil vampires. It is faithful to the novel, but that doesn't make it good.

So if the core romantic storyline doesn't work, what does work? Well, the supporting characters are surprisingly engaging, even when they don't have to be. Bella's new friends at school are all friendly and charming, but just a little obnoxious in that 'teenager way'. The Native American neighbors are humorous and opinionated, even if they are in the story mainly to introduce local folklore (I'll assume they play a bigger part in the future stories). And Edward's vampire family is genuinely entertaining, and the gently awkward first introductions at their house is a highlight of the film (when Bella arrives, they are all frantically fixing her a meal, using their kitchen for the first time and desperately trying to learn how to actually cook). Of course, the first appearance of Edward's physician father elicits chuckles, as his vampire makeup is so cheesy that I half expected his name tag to read 'Dr. Acula'. Even Bella's newly married mother (Sarah Clarke), who has gone on the road with her minor-league baseball player husband, is given a final scene of empathy and warmth that belies her complicated life choice.

Most importantly, Bella's father (Billy Burke) is portrayed as a completely capable and loving father, not domineering, rarely judgmental, and occasionally funny. Frankly, the shockingly realistic relationship between Bella and her father was the one I cared about in the end and almost makes the movie worth recommending on that basis. They truly love each other and care about each other, and the third act confrontation between them (in which Bella is forced by circumstance to spew hateful things to him to keep him out of danger) is so devastating that the film wobbles by not actually showing their reconciliation.

So, in the end, Twilight is handsomely produced, well-acted (save Pattinson, who was better and far more of a catch as Cedric Diggory), and relatively engaging teen melodrama. That I didn't buy the core romance would usually be a fatal problem, but I found the rest of the film charming enough to compensate. I liked the ridiculous vampire baseball game (dig those old-fashioned pinstripe uniforms), I laughed out loud at both of the scenes between Bella's dad and Bella's boyfriend, I liked that Bella's female friends are allowed to be pretty and engaging and completely living their own lives unrelated to the central plot. Truth be told, I am genuinely curious to discover what happens next to the people of Fork, Washington, even if I couldn't care less if Bella and Edward end up together.

Grade: B-

close article | permalink

Are you stressed about money? If so, you are not alone.

According to a recent American Psychological Association survey a whopping 80% of Americans say the economy is causing them to feel stress, up from 66% back in April. Declining GDP, rising unemployment, the nefarious specter of deflation -- the list of economic woes grows longer with each passing day. There is a silver lining in all this, however. Over the past twenty-five years, as a nation, we have become incredibly blase about our personal finances. This economic meltdown is a financial wake-up call of epic proportions for each and every one of us.

Over 70% of Americans are currently living paycheck-to-paycheck according to the American Payroll Association. Think about that. It means the last time you were in a restaurant, at the movies, or walking down the street -- seven out of ten people you passed by are living on the edge of financial disaster. As Financial Literacy Advocates we have given talks to thousands of people from coast to coast. We have met people who can save money on incomes of $40,000 a year and individuals who don't have two nickels to rub together on incomes of $400,000 or more (!). For it matters not how big your income is. If you spend more than you earn, you end up in the same financial black hole. In America today that hole is getting rather crowded.

Until recently, this state of affairs did not seem to be particularly troubling with less than 40% of us even bothering to try to budget -- let alone succeeding at it according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. The result has been an accumulation of debt that would leave even a champion sprinter gasping for breath. As we roll into 2009 US consumers are carrying over $970 billion in revolving debt (the vast majority of which is credit card debt). This figure is up from $222 billion back in 1989, according to the Federal Reserve.

What happened? How did we veer so far off course from our historic roots as a country founded on the values of hard work, perseverance and thrift?

Culprit number one is a society in which personal finance, like parenting, is expected to simply be picked up "along the way." We are not formally taught the basics of personal finance, and unlike parenting, there is not much societal support for admitting to confusion in the arena of money. Culprit number two is pervasive media images of "middle class" lifestyles that are anything but. For instance, if the Desperate Housewives on Wisteria Lane tried to live like that on real world incomes, they would have been teetering on the verge of bankruptcy by the end of season one. The final and most deadly culprit, however, has been easy access to credit. In years past if you wanted to borrow money, you had to put on your Sunday finest, march down to your local bank, and have a long chat with the loan officer. You were forced to explain what that money would be used for and how you would pay it back. Today, we can all race to the mailbox in our pajamas, rip open a credit-card application, and we're off to the spending races. Stir theses three forces up and you have a World Gone Wild... financially speaking.

The good news is that we can change. In the 1980s and 1990s we took a detour down the path of competitive consumerism. Money became a pawn in a game to acquire more stuff and more prestige. Our national personal savings rate, long in the double-digits, dropped precipitously. At one point it even dipped into negative territory, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Today we are at a unique crossroads in history where we have the opportunity to take back the power. We can choose to spend our money wisely. We can learn to live within our means. We can use our money to help the people and enable the causes we believe in.

Together we can "Save, Baby, Save" -- not just our money but perhaps also our souls.

close article | permalink

Sunday, and the living is easy...

Thomas Friedman:

If I had my druthers right now we would convene a special session of Congress, amend the Constitution and move up the inauguration from Jan. 20 to Thanksgiving Day. Forget the inaugural balls; we can’t afford them. Forget the grandstands; we don’t need them. Just get me a Supreme Court justice and a Bible, and let’s swear in Barack Obama right now — by choice — with the same haste we did — by necessity — with L.B.J. in the back of Air Force One.

Stuart Taylor: Liberal justices suck. Thank God there aren't too many of them.

George Will:

So, regarding judging, too, conservatism is a house divided. And as Lincoln said (sort of), a house divided against itself is really interesting.

Eleanor Clift:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 75 percent of Americans think Obama will be a good, even great president, far more than the 53 percent who voted for him. Those citizens may be responding in part to Obama's election-night victory speech quoting Abraham Lincoln: "We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break the bonds of our affection."

Still, some things that Obama may do will need the broadest possible coalition. Not alienating McCain and Lieberman might pay dividends. Or not.

Maureen Dowd:

The movie [Milk], chronicling the rancorous California fight of gay activists against church-backed forces in the ’70s to prevent discrimination against gays, is opening amid a rancorous California fight of gay activists against church-backed forces to prevent discrimination against gays.

Nicholas Kristoff:

Barack Obama’s most difficult international test in the next year will very likely be here in Pakistan. A country with 170 million people and up to 60 nuclear weapons may be collapsing.

Bernard Avishai: What's wrong with Detroit.

close article | permalink

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that Daily Kos is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founder is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our mojotocracy, this post is your answer.

close article | permalink

This evening's Rescue Rangers are jlms qkw, Yatpundit, HansScholl, srkp23, mem from somerville, and dadanation, with watercarrier4diogenes at the wheel of the Editmobile

The Rangers have sifted and sorted through 257 diaries to bring you these 12 great examples of the excellent writing and breadth of subjects that Teh Orange has become known for.

• mieprowan shares the holiday story of A day off for the homeless, 1987. (jlms qkw)
• doorguy opens a small diner to feed the soul, stomach, and the community, and sets about Doing something about the economy. (HansScholl)
• Translator considerately reminds us of Holiday Travel Safety Tips 21 November 2008. (jlms qkw)
• Welcome first-time diarist Kavirondo, a distant but important voice, who describes past interactions with American influence and presents hopes for both the Obama administration and for progressive bloggers in Kos and Rural Africa's Obama. (mem from somerville)
• JeremiahRosemont keeps the spotlight on a complex story of injustice against undocumented workers in Postville and Agriprocessors Finally Gain National Media Attention. (srkp23)
• The aptly named New Deal democrat reviews a previous banking crisis and describes the effective measures that were engaged in How Roosevelt solved the Banking Crisis - A Model for our Time. (mem from somerville)
• Not really In Defense of the Electoral College, so much as a call for restructuring it, danps argues that making our Congressional representatives the presidential electors would strengthen the hand of the legislative branch. (HansScholl)
• Marcion reviews and explains the Iraq Status of Forces Agreement Update, with unofficial translation and analysis. (jlms qkw)
• The National Intelligence Council wants President-elect Obama to be a hawk, so says LithiumCola in Reading Between the Lines of the NIC Global Trends Report. (YatPundit)
• Liberal Youth warns of the dangers of prosecutorial misconduct in the International Criminal Court's first proceedings against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of the Congo in First ICC War Crimes Trial to Occur. (HansScholl)
• Winter Rabbit details the U.S.'s genocidal intent and actions in The 140th Anniversary of the Washita Massacre of Nov. 27, 1868. (srkp23)
• arodb brings to the fore an oft-forgotten moment in our history with Harry Truman's brush with Death. (dadanation)

jotter has High Impact Diaries - November 21, 2008 and va dare has Top Comments 11.22.09 - Appalachian journalist / hero is gone.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread (even if you're the author! Here's where that's actually appreciated). And, of course, since it's an open thread, PLAY NICE, OK? 8^)

close article | permalink

Keeping America ill-informed, 24x7 -- they purport, you decide:

close article | permalink

President-elect Obama's address to the nation today has got me all fired up all over again. In the days immediately following the election, there was a natural sort of waning of intensity as the afterglow of victory receded. And then the distraction of the HRC and Lieberman dramas was disconcerting.

All this was taking place in a leadership vacuum created by the combination of George W. Bush's unwillingness to do anything to help the economy, and by the fact that Barack Obama does not get sworn into office for two more months.

But today, President-elect Obama stepped up to the plate and started to define the work that we must do. He didn't tick off a technocratic list of bullet points aimed at achieving small goals. Instead, he set forth a bold vision of creating 2.5 million jobs by investing in our in nation's infrastracture and by starting the process of building a new energy economy.

These are things we've needed to do for years and years, and finally the moment is arriving where will we move from simply hoping that they get done, to actually getting them done. And that's inspiring.

In a sense, this is the beginning of his presidency. Sure, he won't put his hand on the Bible for several more weeks. But he's laying out what will happen as soon as he steps into the Oval Office. I can't wait.

close article | permalink